Neg V Jzm

Key Facts

Issues

• Contempt for filing frivolous appeals was vacated as jurisdiction lies with the appellate court under Pa.R.A.P. 2744.
• Mother and her counsel communicated with children about custody, filed lawsuits, and were found in contempt for violating a court order prohibiting such discussions.
• Contempt finding for violating a gag order was vacated due to lack of notice and opportunity to respond, as previously determined in N.E.G. I.
• Mother's attempts to submit photographs without meeting court-imposed conditions, leading to contempt findings and preclusion of evidence.
• Mother and her counsel's communication with the therapist raised allegations of abuse, leading to contempt for violating court orders.
• Mother's willful refusal to comply with mental health evaluation orders, including crossing out terms in consent agreements, leading to contempt findings and sanctions.
• Mother's failure to keep Father informed about the children's activities, resulting in contempt for violating custody terms.
• Mother and counsel submitted documents improperly, leading to contempt for violating filing rules.

Holdings

• The court affirmed the trial court's finding of contempt for Mother and her counsel's improper filings on the court docket. These included unauthorized notices and attachments, which violated procedural rules. The appellate court rejected claims that the trial court improperly struck admissible evidence.
• The court affirmed the trial court's finding of contempt against Mother for willfully refusing to comply with mental health evaluation orders. Mother's refusal to accept terms in the evaluators' contracts was deemed obstructionist, and she failed to justify her non-compliance. The appellate court upheld the trial court's authority to determine contempt for non-compliance with its orders.
• The court adjusted the trial court's sanction for Mother's July 17, 2023 contempt. The original $5,000 fine was improperly converted to a $10,000 fee award. The appellate court directed that the fine be assessed separately as $5,000, in addition to the remaining $100,000 sanction.
• The court affirmed the trial court's contempt finding for Mother's failure to consult and inform Father about children's activities and appointments. Mother's arguments were deemed waived for lack of proper development in her brief.
• The court vacated the trial court's finding of contempt for violating the November 2023 gag order. The prior appeal (N.E.G. I) had already invalidated the December 1, 2023 contempt order due to lack of notice, and the trial court did not provide adequate procedural safeguards for the June 13, 2024 order.
• The court affirmed the trial court's finding of contempt for Mother and her counsel's communication with children about custody matters. Evidence showed ongoing discussions with children post-prohibition, including filing a civil lawsuit on their behalf. The appellate court rejected claims of lack of evidence.
• The court affirmed the trial court's finding of contempt for Mother's interference with her son's counseling. Mother and her counsel's emails to the therapist included false allegations against Father, and Mother failed to justify these communications. The appellate court upheld the trial court's factual determinations.
• The court affirmed the trial court's contempt finding for Mother's failure to submit photographs as ordered. Mother submitted altered verification forms and provided inappropriate justifications, leading to the preclusion of the photographs. The appellate court concluded her actions violated court orders and supported the contempt determination.
• The court vacated the trial court's finding of contempt for filing frivolous appeals. Jurisdiction to determine frivolous appeals lies with the appellate court under Pa.R.A.P. 2744, and the trial court had no authority to assess fees for such appeals. This aspect of the contempt order was reversed.

Remedies

• Mother and Attorney Ducote were directed to comply with court orders, including ceasing improper filings and communications with children, as part of contempt sanctions.
• Mother ordered to pay $100,000 in counsel fees to Father for contemptuous conduct from May 2023 to March 2024. Attorney Ducote ordered to pay $25,000 in counsel fees for conduct from September 2023 to March 2024.
• The trial court's findings of contempt for violations of the November 2023 gag order and for filing frivolous appeals were vacated due to procedural deficiencies and lack of jurisdiction.
• The $5,000 fine imposed on Mother for the July 17, 2023 contempt was maintained, but the $10,000 conversion to counsel fees was vacated.
• The total sanctions were vacated, and the case remanded for recalculation of counsel fees consistent with the decision, excluding the vacated contempt findings.

Monetary Damages

Legal Principles

• The appellate court affirmed the trial court's civil contempt findings based on the preponderance of evidence standard. It noted that the lack of purge conditions did not convert the proceedings to criminal contempt, as the sanctions were compensatory and coercive in nature.
• The court addressed whether the trial court's contempt proceedings violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. It concluded that the June 13, 2024 contempt findings involved separate violations of pretrial orders from prior adjudications, thus permitting additional contempt proceedings without violating double jeopardy principles.
• The decision emphasized the trial court's obligation to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard in contempt proceedings. It clarified that while criminal contempt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, civil contempt proceedings rely on a preponderance of evidence standard and do not mandate purge conditions.

Precedent Name

• In re Martorano
• Thunberg v. Strause
• Ewing v. Oliver Realty, Inc.
• Gross o/b/o I.M. v. Mintz
• Lundy v. Manchel
• S.B. v. S.S.
• Gunther v. Bolus
• Fetzer v. Fetzer
• Gross v. Mintz
• Cnty. of Fulton v. Sec'y of Commonwealth
• Langendorfer v. Spearman

Cited Statute

• Pa. Rules of Evidence 401-402 and 901-902
• Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
• 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5323(g)(1)
• Pa.R.A.P. 1701
• Pa.R.A.P. 2744

Judge Name

• Sullivan
• McLaughlin
• Lazarus

Passage Text

• When a trial court adjudges someone in contempt of a custody order, five procedural elements are recommended to ensure due process: (1) a rule to show cause why attachment should issue; (2) an answer and hearing; (3) a rule absolute; (4) a hearing on the contempt citation; and (5) an adjudication. However, all five factors are not mandatory. The essential due process requisites for a finding of civil contempt are notice and an opportunity to be heard.
• The fact that the trial court did not set a purge condition does not alter our analysis. See Cnty. of Fulton, 292 A.3d at 1004 (adopting a master's recommendation to impose counsel fees for a county's violation of a temporary stay and proceedings to enforce the stay without mention of a purge condition). Moreover, while it is clear that the trial court expressed understandable frustration over Mother and her counsel's litigation tactics, so long as the counsel fees are not excessive as to constitute punishment, we will regard the contempt proceedings to be civil, not criminal in nature.
• We agree in principle that jurisdiction to determine whether an appeal is frivolous rests with the court in which an appeal is taken. See Lundy v. Manchel, 865 A.2d 850, 857 (Pa. Super. 2004) ('[a]n appeal is frivolous if the appellate court determines that the appeal lacks any basis in law or in fact') (emphasis added). As an extension, under Pa.R.A.P. 2744, only the appellate court has jurisdiction to direct an award of counsel fees for a frivolous appeal.